The internet got her. The day has come that neither Schiller could continue anymore to point a finger at non-intellectuals while they pushed bad arguments over the true facts. The internet has shown real intellectual content together with an apptitude for facts and that has swamped the old NPR meme of their being a needed opposition to country dumb hicks.

I'd say the heart of the problem is the fact that they're not forced to turn a profit. Their board of directors will replace Schiller with another CEO and their choice, once again, won't be based on competence, it will be based on politics and hollow Ivy League credentials.

Had NPR been subjected to the same market as other networks, it would have went out of business ten years ago and we wouldn't be subjected to this spectacle of bad management. And to the cringe-inducing radio voice of Ira Glass, doing his best impersonation of a smug 15-year-old boy, as we flip through channels trying to find classical music.

I lost my sympathy for public broadcasting when WGBH bought out the local commercial classical station, moved all of its classical music programming over, and filled its day with inane pseudo-intellectual opinion shows.

What's wrong with NPR is that the service is produced by and for a relatively small and extremely parochial segment of American society - people who read the NY Times and the New Yorker and congratulate themselves on how much smarter and more refined they are than everybody else. TheyW therefore have no interest in actually understanding other points of view (unless they are edgy and transgressive and anti-capitalist), as proved by the idiotic comments re the Tea Party, etc. FWIW, I more-or-less like NPR, particularly PHC, Car Talk, Says You, etc. I could even stand the news coverage, except that my wife gets mad if I point out the biases and inaccuracies. The only thing that's truly intolerable is On the Media.

The "people who count" aka the beautiful people have known for a long long time that NPR is hard left and that's perfectly fine with them, because for the mostpart they too are hard left. And since, when all is said and done, the people who count are the people in the driver's seat, I predict confidently that NPR will not be defunded. Also, watch how reluctant the Republican establishment is to pursue defunding and how quickly the issue is dropped. As they see it why arouse the wrath of the BP's, or of their own wives, over such a piddling issue.

I'm still a Curious George! we've heard from Schillers ad nauseum, the NPR board and now the Aspen Institute (who have just informed us that one Schiller will not be employed there after all and scrubbed the glowing "whoopee/welcome!" from their website)..what about the sponsors? Especially the "Jewish" one?

One of Ace's commenters posited that Ron Schiller's worst offense wasn't his dismissal of those on the right as gun-toting racist hicks - that's received wisdom for them - but admitting that NPR could survive without government largesse.

At this point, Crack is asking the right question. What is wrong with our culture that is supports, not just tolerates, but supports strongly such incompetence and bigotry just because it's the right flavor for a minority of the people out there. Supported through government, media and over stretched taxpayer dollars.

It fine for it to exist, but that we force so many to support it while it insults them is embarrassing.

Let’s consider who PBS is broadcasting to. Who is American Experience, Nova, Frontline, The Independent Lens, The News Hour, American Masters, Austin City Limits, Charlie Rose, and Antique Road Show aimed at? I can easily make the argument that Archer Daniels Midland, the Annegberg Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the like are broadcasting to themselves and their peers.Let’s also look at the PBS of radio, NPR.The format of NPR includes Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Radiolab, Talk of the Nation Science, World Café, and World of Opera. If you’ve listened to NPR, and have an ounce of honesty, it’s easy to recognize that they are not broadcasting to Raul in the barrio, Keshia in South Central, Bo in W. Virginia, or for that matter, Joaquin in Hialeah.Could one not make the argument that it is WASPS broadcasting to WASPS in what they call the“pursuit of the highest artistic and intellectual accomplishments?” And IF that argument can be made, do you not also have to question the need of tax payer funding?

I went to a taping of the quiz show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" in Austin, Texas. It was obnoxious. The host, I can't remember his name, spent half the time pandering to the presumably (I'm sure in his mind) liberal Austin audience. They should have named that episode "Wink, Wink, Don't Tell Me". He acted on the assumption that no one in the audience could possibly have a different political opinion than he did (along with all those who produce the show, presumably) and spoke accordingly. He specifically and vocally denigrated Republicans and made no effort to provide any balance. Even if the majority of the audience was Austin liberal, it was a tacky way for a guest in the city to behave towards its citizens who had spent money to come watch. I was disgusted at his obnoxiousness and no longer listen to the show on occasion as I used to. There is no way I want any of my tax money going to people like him or those who make him possible. Did I mention the pandering? It was embarrassing. A joke or two would have been fine but he didn't know when to stop.

"After news of the videotape broke Tuesday, NPR issued a statement from Vivian Schiller that said his remark's were "contrary to what NPR stands for and deeply distressing to reporters, editors and others who bring fairness, civility and respect for a wide variety of viewpoints to their work everyday.""

But the problem, of course, is that this is not true and it's finally caught up with them.

Joaquim speaks the truth. The audience for NPR is made up of what used to be called the American patrician class. Patricians have always had contempt for the plebes and do everything to seperate themselves from the "masses." That's why the Hamptoms and Newport exist. Just consider CPB, NPR and PBS the Hamptoms of the airwaves.

Just remember, if you like serious music there is always a choice that is superior to to public radio -- WFMT in Chicago. It's a commerical radio station and there really is an AP for that!

Crack is definitely asking the right question, but it's a mistake to think that it's the first time this question has ocurred to many - perhaps most - of us. I've wondered why NPR/PBS get public funds for years. The advent of the Internet and its ability to allow millions of voices from the same number of perspectives to compete in the marketplace of ideas from the comfort of their own armchairs should have sounded the death knell for NPR/PBS.

Even before Al Gore invented the Internet though, there has never been any purpose to government-run media, espeically vis-a-vis the First Amendment. It seems to me that one of the primary policies underlying 1A is that the "press" is an entity separate from the government about which it is writing.

The sister of one of my friends posted a Facebook comment on Ronald Schiller's remarks about Tea Partiers being racist: it's true, so why is what he said a problem (paraphrased). When I suggested to her that not all who support the Tea Party are racist and that she might very well know more Tea Partiers (and even Republicans) than she thinks, she replied that the NAACP put out a report that white supremacist groups have taken over the Tea Party movement, ergo the whole movement is racist. But those of us who hold an opinion that is different from the liberal groupthink should nevertheless feel free to speak up.

BTW, the title line of this post should read "whose" rather than "who's."

Orwell was spot-on in dissecting fools like the Schillers. From 'The Lion and The Unicorn:'

"In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman, and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse-racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true, that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during 'God Save the King' than of stealing from a poor box."

Change "English" to "American" and "GSTG" to "The Star-Spangled Banner" and the mindset of a great many (though, fairly, not all) of NPRs fan base is well and truly limned.

Both democratic and republican leaders and their filthy rich and powerful corporate donors love the media and public scrutiny on this issue....for it detracts from massive amounts of deceit, destruction, and criminality engaged in by these same and political and corporate leaders. In our highly polarized and digitized counry, I think government funding should be cut-off to NPR. Overall, I am less concerned about the money flowing from the federal government to NPR than I am the money flowing from our for-profit media outlets to our federal, state, and local goverments.

The tendentiousness of NPR's "news" broadcasting has, if anything, gotten even more shameles post-Juan Williams-firing.

The other week I heard during "All Things Considered" an 'argument' purporting to reconstruct how the Founding Fathers 'might' have felt about supporting public broadcasting. See, they created the postal system because it was important to have an informed electorate, so that, you know, [privately funded-- but let's not mention that!] newspapers could circulate. And see, just like they needed newspapers then to keep abreast, so too today we need [publicly-funded] NPR! What would the electorate do without it!!?!

lemondog wrote: In 1988 in celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Leonard Bernstein conducted "Joy" as "Ode to Freedom."

Schiller's lyrics and title were as perfectly suited to the occasion of 1988 as they were in 1785 -- even more so, yet Bernstein just had to revise the text... the man had such a tin ear. That a ham like Lenny Bernstein is considered a seminal figure in modern American music is just more evidence that the 20th century was the nadir of Western art. Let us hope fall of NPR is more than mere that, but the herald of a new day when the good and the beautiful in art can rise above the pretentious scum which the irredeemably leftist-statist NEH and NEA have foisted upon us.

I like NPR. And I hate NPR. But I am never a passive listener. I'd hope most of us could listen and discern truth and prejudice from what we hear. Alas, the polls on Walker after the MSM bore down on him disabuse me of that hope.

The one think I've found funny during the course of discussions about NPR is how many of US...listen to NPR! It's been pretty surprising. (In the interest of fairness and disclosure, I've actually worked the phones for fundraisers for our local community college stations in two different states. I mean, I DO listen...) We survive with our brains intact, can clearly see the bias, but apparently enjoy the diversity of the programming and welcome the headrush it gives us, when they piss us off so unmercifully that our eyes fog from the blood frothing in response.

I forgot Vivian Schiller was head of nytimes.com before taking the NPR gig. How involved was she with the Times Select paywall nonsense? She signed the letter telling everyone that the paywall was being abandoned. Anyone know if she was involved in starting it?

[Vivian Schiller] signed the letter telling everyone that the paywall was being abandoned. Anyone know if she was involved in starting it?

Almost certainly, the paywall pricing policy would have been set by the Chairman. As the NYT web site says "Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. was named chairman of The New York Times Company on October 16, 1997. As the Company’s senior executive, he is responsible for its long-term business strategy."

He does, however, give the Vivian Schillers of the world the job of announcing consequences of failed strategies.

Ann, if I weren't too late to this thread to expect notice, I'd like to ask if there are constitutional issues regarding government-funded media. In PBS and NPR we have tax-supported media outlets that have a strong ideological slant. Could this be challenged on a constitutional basis?

Maybe the slant isn't so much the issue--everything can be perceived as having some sort of slant--but the idea of government supported news coverage.

What's your point? Are you saying Sesame Street shouldn't license merchandise? Why would that be a problem?

To me the problem is the other way around, having to sell time to advertisers in order to survive. This to me is the problem with the modern entertainment industry, instead of making money selling good entertainment to paying customers, they've become over-reliant on advertising and product placement. Disney Corp. being an excellent example.

I'm not saying PBS or NPR should continue to receive govt. subsidies. As the Sesame Street example demonstrates, there are other ways for public programming to survive. And if that includes corporate sponsorships, well, that's better than the stupid mass-consumer advertising we see on garbage networks like ESPN, MTV, TNT, etc.